Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country TN

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cc-tn

Public ISO 3166-1 record for TN.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description only labels the record as 'public'; it does not state that invoking it is a safe read-only lookup, what it returns, or how it treats the ten optional inputs. The 'public record' wording gives a weak read-only hint but not enough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is very short, but this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single noun phrase cannot earn its place for a tool with ten parameters, no output schema, and no annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with ten optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this noun phrase omits essentially everything needed to invoke it correctly: what to pass, what to expect, when to choose it, and what behavior follows. The definition is materially insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has its own description naming the format or purpose, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable at the high-coverage baseline, but it leaves unexplained why these ten varied optional parameters belong on a record tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a concrete resource — the ISO 3166-1 record for TN — so an agent can at least tell the tool concerns Tunisia's country-code entry. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit operation, and it does not say what calling the tool actually does with its many inputs or how it differs from sibling geo/format tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'public record' weakly implies a lookup scenario, but an agent gets no help deciding between this and related siblings such as geo-hint, iana-zones, or fetch-status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ISO country TN toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources